Need help from everyone -- "war" nickel irregularities, and potential numismatic implications...

Hi Steve,

I definitely find this topic an interesting one, although I only have two US nickels!
Both of them found on European beaches, one of them from 1946 amazingly enough.

I have had a lot of curious, precious-metals related stuff tested in the last 15 years with XRF in different countries.

Your best bet would be to find a "we buy gold" shop. They usually have an XRF machine, be it a big machine or hand-held one.
Sometimes they charge a few bucks and often the testing of "out of norm" stuff piques a lot of curiosity and it's like two children
playing, learning and having fun. This is my experience in Europe at least.

The XRF machines in these kind of shops are geared towards what you are looking for (Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, Cu, Ni etc. )
Just in case you are not aware of this, XRF will only do a surface analysis of round 50um depth or so plusminus quite a bit.

Do make multiple tests on different parts of what you're looking at.

I once saw a "topographical map" of Au/Cu concentration of a Krugerrand gold coin taken every tenth mm.
My belief in alloys being homogenous has been shattered since then ...

Hope this helps and Good Luck!

Very interesting, Scoopy_Doo. Interesting info. I will check with some of these "we buy gold" shops here in town, as they may -- like you say -- know more about how to do an analysis for the metals we are interested in...

Steve

Steve,

Yes...…. batch inconsistencies! Silver...…. back in the day...….. is what nearly all coins were made out of. Soooooo the 'value' of silver had a lessor/different meaning at the mints...….. as compared to today. If nickels had too much silver content...….. so be it. 'Nickel' was needed for the war...…. and most coins were made out of silver anyway.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. was probably the 'mindset' of the employees at the mint.

Today...….. using a F75 LTD...….. I found a Indian Head penny. On the F75..... it ID'd as '25'. CRAZY!!!!!...…. as most Indian Head's ID as '58' or '59'. I thought of you...… and your War Nickel efforts...…. the moment I found this IH penny. It has average ground corrosion. I'm wondering if it's counterfeit; yet, why would someone place so much effort on counterfeiting a penny! It even sounds dramatically different when you drop it...… and listen to it 'ring'. Sounds like pure tin.

NASA-Tom --

Yep, it's what you've been saying all along, and what you are saying about the silver makes sense. But, I have some suspicion based on the results that aside from just "varying amounts" of silver, copper, and manganese, that there may have even been some other metals used -- given the amounts of zinc, aluminum, and even iron which showed up in the data...

I really wish there was some way to better quantify what -- and in what amount -- metals were actually used, in the alloy that went into each of these sample nickels. As far as I can tell, there are few, if any, even in numismatic circles, who are aware of anything other than the "official" alloy being used for war nickels; it still seems to me that it would be of somewhat substantial interest to numismatists (as it is to me) to have this "mystery" unraveled...

As for your Indian Head penny -- STRANGE, for sure! Counterfeit would be the first thought, I agree; a numismatist could help there, I'm sure...but as you said -- why a counterfeit penny? Why the effort?

With that said, though, one interesting thing I did learn while speaking with numismatists on this "war nickel" issue, was about something called a "Henning" nickel. Apparently a gent named Henning, from New Jersey, minted (in the 1950s) a bunch of "counterfeit" nickels; he got blanks/planchets that apparently cost him 3 1/2 cents, and so he'd "earn" 1 1/2 cents per nickel (which apparently he thought was enough to be worthwhile).

INTERESTINGLY, as an aside, the Henning nickels apparently used an alloy of copper, nickel, and IRON -- which makes me wonder if the one sample I have that XRF analysis showed nickel as being a part of the alloy, might be a "Henning nickel..."

[www.blackcatmining.com]

Steve

Tomorrow, I will parts of the data obtained from the XRF analysis as well -- but remember, you can't take the numbers as an actual qualitative "amount" of each metal. In other words, 100,000 ppm copper in THIS analysis, using THIS calibration, and THIS voltage, might have been 80,000 ppm if using a DIFFERENT calibration and voltage. The only two things which can be gleaned, from my perspective, from the data are 1.) if nickel "a" shows 100,000 ppm copper, and nickel "b" shows 50,000 ppm copper, then nickel "a" likely has about twice as much copper as nickel "b," and then 2.) a particular metal (for example, aluminum), is likely (not definitely) a part of the alloy, if it shows up in the analysis results with a substantial ppm value. I say LIKELY, because again, some of this depends upon the calibration used. For example, both sulfur and silicon showed up in some/all of the samples, but I doubt there was actually any substantial amount of either in the alloy. I don't totally understand how/why these showed up, but from what I could understand, it was based on the calibration chosen, which was not an "appropriate" calibration for this particular task.

Anyway, I'll post it tomorrow, once I can parse out the relevant parts...

Steve

Here is some of the data...

Silver nickel test. These are 54 silver nickles all found at the same site with-in a 15 foot area. Except for water, these haven't been cleaned in anyway. Here is the breakdown of dates and mint marks:

54 total silver nickles.

1942 P:7

1943 D:1
1943 P:23
1943 S:2

1944 D:1
1944 P:5(1 dented flat on it's side)
1944 S:1

1945 D:1
1945 P:10
1945 S:4

Using the Equinox 800 all metal mode. Each nickle was waved two separate(5 second interval)times on the top side of the coil at about two inches. A typical nickle TID number reading on the Equinox 800 is 13.

D mint mark:

1943-14

1944-13

1945-14

S mint mark:
1943-1@15 1@16

1944-17

1945-1@13 1@14 1@16c1@18

P mint mark:

1942-2@12 5@13

1943-12@12 9@13 1@15 1@16

1944-3@13 1@14(dented one) 1@19

1945-1@13 2@14 1@15 1@17 1@18 2@19 1@20 1@22/23

Summary(My speculation):
If the proposed theory is that more silver content was added to the coins than others, it would seem that the year 1945 at the Philadelphia mint would of been the most likely place and time it would of happened. You can also speculate that all the mints in 1945 might have been getting short with copper. Another theory can be that they had more silver than copper and at the end of the year, they used more silver until the copper shipment came in.

The 1944 P reading a 19 might have been at the end of the year entering 1945.

Notice 1942 and 1943 P a combined total 28 nickles(51.85%) read 12 and 13.

The condition of the nickles didn't seem to affect the TID as some that read high were just as worn as some that read 12/13.

One of the potential problems with the XRF results is that they are examinations of the surface of the coin. Dug-up coins will, obviously, corrode on the surface, skewing the machine's readings. Were any of the examples tested dug-ups?

Pimento --

ALL were dug up, and one had quite a bit of "residue" stuck to it, BUT -- I would also argue that "residue" stuck firmly to some coins, but NOT to others, can also suggest differences in alloy. The coin that had the crusty residue was, interestingly, the one that had the iron content show up in the analysis, and also the one with the most aluminum, in ppm. Was the iron measured DUE TO the surface crust, or was the surface crust due to the iron content in the coin? That's what I've been wondering. BUT -- interesting about what you are saying with respect to the XRF analysis only measuring the surface of the coin. As I understood the person doing the test, I thought that it was more the VOLTAGE USED that determined how deeply into the sample the analysis would read, but I could be wrong on that...

Beyonder --

Thanks for the very interesting set of data, regarding your various nickels. I think your theory is interesting, except that of the four nickels I had tested, the one that read "nickel-like" on my machines was, ironically, the 1945-D! LOL! In any case, there is SOMETHING going on here, and I really hope to be able to find a way to quantify it a bit better...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pimento --
>
> ALL were dug up, and one had quite a bit of "resid
> ue" stuck to it, BUT -- I would also argue that "r
> esidue" stuck firmly to some coins, but NOT to oth
> ers, can also suggest differences in alloy. The c
> oin that had the crusty residue was, interestingly
> , the one that had the iron content show up in the
> analysis, and also the one with the most aluminum,
> in ppm. Was the iron measured DUE TO the surface
> crust, or was the surface crust due to the iron co
> ntent in the coin? That's what I've been wonderin
> g. BUT -- interesting about what you are saying w
> ith respect to the XRF analysis only measuring the
> surface of the coin. As I understood the person d
> oing the test, I thought that it was more the VOLT
> AGE USED that determined how deeply into the sampl
> e the analysis would read, but I could be wrong on
> that...
>
> Beyonder --
>
> Thanks for the very interesting set of data, regar
> ding your various nickels. I think your theory is
> interesting, except that of the four nickels I had
> tested, the one that read "nickel-like" on my mach
> ines was, ironically, the 1945-D! LOL! In any ca
> se, there is SOMETHING going on here, and I really
> hope to be able to find a way to quantify it a bit
> better...
>
> Steve

In this grouping, the 3 D mint marks I have are about on point with acceptable TID numbers for a nickel. A reason for that could be the D mint was more strict or conservative with their materials.

P D S
1942 57,900,000 32,900,000
1943 271,165,000 15,294,000 104,060,000
1944 119,150,000 32,309,000 21,640,000
1945 119,408,100 37,158,000 58,939,000

You can see Denver had low mintages to start with, comparatively speaking. So it may be that the reason was their material allowance was much more reduced. Therefore, their silver went to dimes and high denoms, and when their allotted materials for nickels were exhausted in the specified regulated amounts, they stopped producing them until their next shipment of raw materials arrived and they resumed production.

Beyonder --

Interesting thoughts, for sure. Very interesting; I am going to think some more about your coins and the IDs on the various coins...

I'd like to know more about from whom the Mint contracted, to have their blanks/planchets produced...as that is another piece of the puzzle.

Steve

Steve - Fascinating reading, and your hypothesis seems quite logical as the evidence points to often significant variations in war nickel alloy composition.

War nickels had very large mintages. Who knows how many we've all passed on digging up? In my case anyway, I would argue a lot.

The 1943-P had a then record-high nickel mintage that wouldn't be surpassed until 1962, almost 20 years later. The 1943-S had the highest San Fran mintage until 1969, over 25 years later. 1944 was the lowest total mintage of the three exclusive war nickel years, but was still higher than all but one (1946) of the first nine postwar years. The entire 1945 nickel output was only exceeded once (again 1946) in the next 14 years.

Tom, I wonder if that Indian you found might be an advertising counterfeit? I still have somewhere an advertising sample copy of an ancient coin that my dad was given from an IBM copier salesman in the latter part of the 1960's.

Yes...… I REALLY wonder its authenticity!

Thanks for the time spent for this report, Steve,... good stuff!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2018 09:39AM by ozzie.

This is really very very interesting

Great detective work! Keep it up, hopefully it can be narrowed down and end with as accurate a conclusion as possible, if not the actual conclusion. Which isn't always possible.

If the detective work becomes too time consuming and you need a hand with the research, or anything else, let me know in what direction and I'd be happy to assist.

Hey Steve,

Sorry this is so late coming.

Target ID Readings from 31 War nickels.
Detector Used - Minelab Equinox 800, Stock 11" DD Coil
Settings. Park 1. Noise Cancel 9, Sensitivity 15, Iron Bias 3, Recovery Speed 6
Tests performed indoors
Distance between coin and coil 4-5"
Number of sweeps to determine Target ID - 10+
Both Obverse and Reverse readings were taken. A few coins had a difference in Target ID reading between Obverse and Reverse. Accordingly, the Target ID readings posted will be the same front and back except where noted as Obverse and Reverse readings.

1945-D 14
1943-S 14-15
1942-S 12 Obverse / 12-13 Reverse
1943-S 16 Obverse / 15-16 Reverse
1944-D 13-14

1944-S 14-15
1943-S 16
1943-S 15
1943-P 13
1943-S 13-14

1944-S 13-14
1943-S 13-14
1944-S 15
1943-S 13-14
1942-S 13 Obverse / 13-14 Reverse

1943-S 15-16
1945-S 13-14 Obverse / 12-14 Reverse
1945-S 13-14
1945-S 17-18
1942-S 13-14

1945-P 12-13
1943-S 13-14
1945-S 12-13
1944-D 13-14
1944-D 15-16

1945-D 14-15
1943-P 13-14
1943-S 14-15
1943-S 15
1943-S 12-14

1943-S 12-14

Hope this is helpful for your pool of data.


Rich (Utah)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one more good target before I go.

Rich,

Were these nickels dirt 'dug'...……. or were they from a coin collection?

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> With that said, though, one interesting thing I did learn while speaking with numismatists on this "
> war nickel" issue, was about something called a "Henning" nickel. Apparently a gent named Henning,
> from New Jersey, minted (in the 1950s) a bunch of"counterfeit" nickels; he got blanks/planchets that apparently cost him 3 1/2 cents, and so he'd "earn" 1 1/2 cents per nickel (which apparently he thought was enough to be worthwhile).
>

Paul Hennging, sticking it to The Man 1-1/2 cents a time :)o

Gentlemen --

Thanks for the additional comments, kind words, interesting thoughts, everyone. Gonebeepin' THANKS for the additional data on the coins, and marcomo -- thanks for that mintage info. Really appreciated!

I am on a long vacation right now, but when I get back home, I do plan to check into additional XRF analysis possibilities (one of those "we buy gold" shops that have been mentioned...)


Steve

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich,
>
> Were these nickels dirt 'dug'...……. or were they from a coin collection?

Hi Tom,

All of these War Nickels were dug up and in very good shape.

It wasn't until this exercise that I noticed the very high percentage of San Francisco Mint Marks. Being in Salt Lake City, which is approximately half way between San Francisco and Denver, I've always thought I had a pretty even spread of D and S mint marks on my older found coins. This doesn't seem to be the case for these War Nickels.

Rich

------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one more good target before I go.

And a good reason for that, Rich.

Total S mintage for war nickels was close to 3 times higher than the D mintage total. At a little over 15 million, the 43-D is the key date of the war nickels.